After the Virginia case I doubt this will lead to full data disclosure of Mann, therefore little will be won against junk science advocates. The magic of “science” reporting is the media element of ignoring all the “may”, “suggested”, “most likely” contained and expounding on the exaggerated propositions that are made for political advocacy reasons. You can’t sue Mann because the press shares the same agenda with him and minimize all reasonable interpretations of his presented product.
I would be surprised if either side profited in this case longer-term and tactically in the short-run Mann and alarmists have been boosted. Free speech counter damages? A very small risk to Mann who plays the put-upon victim who is offended. Over years it will go away with minimal cost to Mann. If he gets nailed “they” will deify him. He’s a climate war hero in his own mind and that of the hate driven climate change community.
We are talking about obscure, abstract near worthless “science” in the case of Mann and the fantastical agenda that ever claimed it was significant. That isn’t a statement about his actual science work but the agenda that drives the AGW narrative. As is often the case this shouldn’t be treated much differently then a paper on clinical psychology or paranormal “science”. It’s about opinion and treatment of data to fudge a graph. Do you think the SKS site is going to be brought down because of dubious and dishonest statistics? Regardless these suits are a distraction not a solution. Of course you counter sue but listing claims hardly makes for pop corn, these two parties hardly know one another.

That Mann was a political activist from the start, from his college days at Berkeley. Now he is seen hobnobbing constantly with leftist politicians like Ed Markey and Nancy Pelosi. There’s no way that this Mann can be seen as an objective scientist, instead from day 1 he has shared the objective, or as he has said “the cause,” of the leftists loons, a cause stated by Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren who said, not in reference to climate change but just as a laudable goal in itself, that we must “de-develop the United States… [and] design a stable, low-consumption economy.” Now, like a true Alinsky radical, the litigious Mann is trying to bully his way to victory. Kudos to Steyn in trying to stop the mendacious hockey stick fabricator.

Scott Mandia of the so-called ‘Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’ now has a potentially lucrative permanent job for life trying to keep up with funding of Mann’s legal buffoonism.
Come on Scott, man up, please send Steyn a thank you note.
John

@cwon14: you forget that it was Mann who sued first then didn’t come up with the evidence. The apparent aim was to force corporate funded Steyn to capitulate out of relative poverty. it has rebounded.
The same goes for Tim Ball.

so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a child molesting paedophile then he wouldn’t sue me because he would be suppressing my freedom of speech and public expression? #justaskingREPLY: Ah but Steyn didn’t say that, check your facts. The statement that resulted in the lawsuit was: “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science”. One is an accusation, the other is satire. – Anthony

I wonder with all the current hoopla in the US Senate, the State department’s rhetoric regarding “our brave” Diplomatic men and women all over the world standing on guard against the greatest [threat] to mankind, the largest weapon of mass destruction ever!!! ie Climate Change if they realize finally that they are wrong and in their minds the best [defense] is to attack? And that means attack at all costs? I hope Steyn realises this and I agree with his doubling down but are Mann’s supporters and backers are going to back him up? With all I see going on I fear they are.

Jo Swansom says:
March 13, 2014 at 12:26 pm
so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a child molesting paedophile then he wouldn’t sue me because he would be suppressing my freedom of speech and public expression? #justasking

– – – – – – – – –
Jo Swansom,
This is an open blog, you can address your question personally and directly to Steyn. He might answer you.
However, are you implying Steyn called Mann that? Wrong implication.
John

“…. and tactically in the short-run Mann and alarmists have been boosted. “
Utter nonsense. Mann is likely terrified right about now. His legal expenses are covered, but it seems to me he’s personaaly on the hook for damages. Mann looks increasingly like the loony, paranoid, Captain Queeg figure that he is, and I’m certain there’s a great deal of behind the scenes alarmist teeth gnashing over this situation….
That said, I do not believe this case will proceed to the end. Mann will be looking for a way out. Bullies are always cowards.

IN Texas,
However, if the statements are of general nature and do not specifically relate to the party’s profession or occupation, the injured party will have to put on evidence of actual damages incurred as the result of such statements.
According to Hancock, unless being truthful is a specific trait of a profession or a business, being called or labeled a “liar” is not enough to allow a presumption of actual damages.

“so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a child molesting paedophile”
First of all you would be redundant. Secondly, Steyn did not call Mann that name. So then why did you pose this question? Just asking.

This suit is going nowhere –
Rarely, if ever, do litigants get punished for filing frivolous lawsuits.
Steyn will have to demonstrate that Mann’s purpose for filing his defamation lawsuit was for harrassment, to suppress Steyns free speech rights, etc. Given that Mann has a plausible claim to the defamation, it becomes almost an impossible burden to overcome. Probably a much bigger hurdle to overcome than Mann having to prove malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Given that there is such a significant amount of quality information available, proving reckless disregard for the truth is also a very near impossible.
The two advantages of filing the suit are
1) it jacks up Mann’s legal fees, so it makes the attorney’s happy and
2) It gives the judge a much better perspective on the purpose of Mann’s lawsuit. (whether it is to Steyn’s benefit or if it simply ticks the judge off – we will have to wait and see)

“Jo Swansom says: March 13, 2014 at 12:26 pm
so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a child molesting paedophile (sic)…”

So, your claim is that Mark Steyn is a child? And that he’s molesting a pedophile? By suing Manniacal he’s molesting him? Not forgetting that you’re the one inferring that Manniacal is shamefully deviant.
Got proof?

Jo Swansom at March 13, 2014 at 12:26 pm asks:
> so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a …
In almost all jurisdictions, you can say exactly that without fear of lawsuit because “opinion” is a recognized defense to a defamation claim.
You sometimes get into a gray area with “Mark Steyn is a …”. Depending on the context, that statement could be interpreted as a statement of fact or of opinion. But when you explicitly qualify your statement as opinion, the defense is pretty close to irrefutable.

I do not believe this case will proceed to the end. Mann will be looking for a way out.

Please remember that only Steyn has declined the opportunity to appeal the lower court denial of motion to dismiss under anti-Slapp. NR/CEI/Simberg have elected to appeal that decision and it is likely that their appeal will be adjudicated long before the Steyn/Mann counter-claim trial is calendered.
The likelihood of Mann prevailing on appeal seems more and more remote with recent analysis providing more substance for the legitimacy of Steyn’s expressed opinion…even IF the appeals court was to uphold its lower court characterization as a “statement of fact”.
Where there is even an inkling of credible argument in support of defendant’s position, the court is almost compelled by judicial precedent and first amendment bias to rule in favor of the defense. Should that occur, Mann’s “way out” of will then be at the indulgence of Mark Steyn. What a delicious prospect.

As posters on other related threads have said, you can’t sue someone for suing you. I’m not an attorney, but having been involved in >10 years of litigation as a corporate rep and expert witness in about 6 jurisdictions, the correct procedure would be to file a Rule 11 motion such that if he prevailed even the plaintiff’s attorneys would be on the hook for costs. Previous rulings, however, now preclude this even.
I hope I’m wrong, but I was hoping to see something more substantial from Steyn in this post. He really must not be using an attorney at all, which is not very wise.
With or without counterclaims though, I’m pretty sure he will be able to depose and do discovery on whoever he pleases, so he should be able to get the infamous e-mails.

Sorry, previous comment by “Al” was me — I accidentally posted before filling out my usual name.
Anyway, the real problem here is the US does not have a loser pays rule for civil suits. In theory the defendant in one suit who prevails at trial can file a separate suit to recover legal costs, but he has to show the original suite was meritless, not simply inadequate. There is thus a viable legal strategy of “punishment by due process” whereby one litigant with deeper pockets can in effect extort money from another in the form of attorney’s fees. The US courts are loath to admit that they are the problem, and tend to act as if more consideration yields a better decision, so if one side wants to draw the proceedings out by filing a flurry of motions it is almost impossible for the other side to avoid the added expense of responding to them all. Remember if one side makes a representation of fact which the other side does not counter, the courts will with rare exceptions accept the submission as true. In other words, if you don’t show up you lose by forfeit. Showing up costs money, which is the whole point of punitive litigation.
The financially weak litigant can be bankrupted before ever going to trial, which is almost certainly the goal of Mann’s suit (bankrolled by George Soros I believe).
Merely filing a countersuit demanding substantial compensation doesn’t change the fact that to be properly represented in court is expensive. I personally believe Stein is a fool if he is trying to represent himself — many litigations are won or lost on purely procedural issues, which strongly favors professional experienced litigators.
I certainly hope Stein prevails in defending against Mann’s defamation suit, and that he moves back to the venue where he clearly has the advantage — published satire. It’s quite possible he could do more damage to Mann, his backers and the rest of the Carbon Cult in that venue than he could ever have a hope to collect in court.

I’m personally glad that Steyn has thrown off his gag and dumped his attorneys. I have complete faith in the legal system in this country. I believe somewhere down there, under all the lawyerly BS, billable hours, shenanigans designed to drag out the process, etc., there’s still the rule of law. Weisberg (or whatever his name is) had an opportunity to follow that law, but instead decided to thumb his nose at the intent of anti-SLAPP (a decision I’m betting he’s starting to regret). Steyn will prod, annoy, expose, etc, our legal system for what it is. And the whole time, the first amendment will be precariously balanced on the shelf. Ken White seems to be arguing that Steyn’s a fool to be going it alone and that his decision will affect us all. In other words, the US Justice System thinks that billable hours is more important than following the law. In 10 years time, we’ll all be sitting in court for one perceived libel or another and have Mark Steyn to thank for it. Not me. I’ll be in Australia or some other free country buying Mark a drink at the pub.

Al says:
March 13, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“In the US anyone can sue anyone else for anything and ask for any amount of money. That doesn’t mean he will get any of it.”
That’s so 20th century. You can’t sue the state or any of its agencies because the Supreme Court will rule that you have no standing.

Frank says:
March 13, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Another important thing about counterclaims is that Mann cannot just dismiss his case on the eve of trial or whenever discovery gets inconvenient.

===============================================================
Good point. G. Gordon Liddy was sued by John Dean for saying something to the effect that the Watergate break in also had something to with recovering embarrassing information about Dean’s wife. Liddy counter sued. (I think Dean tried to drop his suit but Liddy’s proceeded.) Dean lost, Liddy won.

Stacks-Bowers will be auctioning a Nobel Medal in an upcoming auction event. Perhaps Dr. Mann should slap a bid down real quick.
If successful, he can then honestly say ” I won a Nobel Peace Prize medal.

since the posting on semiotics (the ship, when the rats debarqued) it is appropriate to note that michael mann, convicted liar, is the single most potent talking point you could hope for and the one that will demonstrate that ‘when you’re down for the count, you have no friends’.
mann’s head on a post WILL bring down the entire architecture of the cagw fraud because it refutes EvErYtHiNg at the root. (yes- attack the mann- make it personal. alinsky was right on that.)
following in his footsteps will be half of congress and pretty much the entire whitehouse.
(they will sing the ‘we were fooled’ song without even realizing that such a confession confirms what has been long known, i.e., fools are fools. confessing it doesn’t change it – it just makes it impossible to deny. show no mercy.)
when the guru of this cult is incontestably demonstrated to be a compulsive liar, there is no possible way to continue promoting it. they’ll turn on him so fast.
liberal tears – a floor wax and a desert topping!
mr steyn might be able to arrange delivery in bulk.

Some people seem to think that Steyn is sitting alone in his office being his own lawyer. Not so. He has been inundated with free legal advice and offers of assistance, quite a bit of it from lawyers. 🙂
He has made it clear that he wants to run the strategy of his case, and that is why he separated from the NRO/CEI lawyers. He considers that their strategy failed him (6 months, half a million dollars and no progress whatsoever).
But he is getting plenty of legal assistance with the tactics, quite possibly pro bono or at a discount.

Someone above posted that likening Mann to a Pedophile was in effect a ‘low blow’ and as a result hard to defend.
Now I am always wary of deceit and fakery, from whichever direction it might come, but if the ‘facts’ are correct – namely, the ‘same’ Penn State Committee, led by the ‘same’ (now discredited) person, exonerated Sandusky and Mann in ‘similarly worded’ documents. This connection/association between Mann and Sandusky should be easily presented to a jury.
After which the ‘jokey’ or ‘humorous’ reference to Michael Mann as the ‘Jerry Sandusky of Climate Change’ should make much more sense.
Did anyone notice how I put quite a lot of that between inverted commas?
It’s kinda like ‘tiptoeing’ through the words!

Steyn knows his counterclaims are doubly fanciful: there is no chance he will win, and even if he were to win, there is no chance he would be awarded or be able to collect the sums claimed. He is known for his mocking irony, and he is just having some fun with this. But the counterclaims are highly problematic and have at least one serious implication.
Claiming to be the victim of a malicious and frivolous action, after a judge has already ruled that there is enough evidence to proceed, is tantamount to appealing that judge’s decision without actually appealing it. I don’t think any court would allow such a collateral appeal. Indeed, Mann can now apply to have Steyn’s counterclaims thrown out, and there is a fair to excellent chance of such a motion succeeding. Steyn would then be liable to pay Mann’s costs for that epicycle in the proceedings. Plus, they would delay the main action for another year or so.
The serious legal implication is this: If, as is most likely, Mann loses his claim and Steyn loses his counterclaim, costs will likely be deemed to nullify each other. Whereas if Steyn had simply defended against Mann’s claim, it is a certainty he would be entitled to his costs. So having some fun with the counterclaims might end up costing Steyn hundreds of thousands of dollars in foregone costs.
As for representing himself, I’m not convinced he is putting himself in much jeopardy. There are other defendants who have lawyers. If some tricky procedural thing happens, he can wait to see how the other guys’ lawyers handle it, and then follow suit.

So how hard would it be to get a line up of experts to express their opinion about using tree rings as a proxy for temperature? How many of those experts would likely say that using tree rings as proxies for temperature was fraudulent?

“Mann can now apply to have Steyn’s counterclaims thrown out, and there is a fair to excellent chance of such a motion succeeding. Steyn would then be liable to pay Mann’s costs for that epicycle in the proceedings.”
——————————————————————————
It is not a given that Steyn would have to pay Mann’s costs just because his counterclaim is dismissed, any more than it is a given that he would automatically be liable for Mann’s costs if Mann’s action succeeds.

“Given that Mann has a plausible claim to the defamation, it becomes almost an impossible burden to overcome.”
PLausibility is in the eye of the beholder. We’ve already seen that Mann’s contention Steyn should have known he had been explicitly “exonerated” by various panels is false, in I believe at last count, 5 separate instances. Mann’s case looks extremely weak now.

The real victory in Steyn’s case would be if the Womann-named-Sue is forced to hand over all her code and data for the world to see. That would presumably destroy her once and for all (though of course there would still be plenty of die-hard believers).

I wonder with all the current hoopla in the US Senate, the State department’s rhetoric regarding “our brave” Diplomatic men and women all over the world standing on guard against the greatest [threat] to mankind, the largest weapon of mass destruction ever!!!

This must be why Obummer sacrificed US citizens at Benghazi … a planned terrorist attack is of little threat compared to the GW-WMD. Alternatively, the truly brave and patriotic souls sacrificed there did not share his regime’s world view of the non-problem of global warming.

[ … ] In 10 years time, we’ll all be sitting in court for one perceived libel or another and have Mark Steyn to thank for it. Not me. I’ll be in Australia or some other free country buying Mark a drink at the pub.

It’ll have to be with us in Australia … we’re the only free country left for the time being. We’d be pleased to accommodate your wishes.

[ … ] he is getting plenty of legal assistance with the tactics, quite possibly pro bono or at a discount.

One would have to think so, Jo. First principle of negotiation is to not negotiate on the terms of the other party … take away their perceived advantage … Steyn is smart in doing this and not being cowered by and dancing to Mann’s tune. Steyn is playing his own tune and Mann will eventually have to dance to it.

It’s pretty clear that (with one or two exceptions) the amount of collective legal knowledge possessed by those loudly and confidently expounding here could fit in a teaspoon with plenty of room to spare.
But then why should I expect any different? The same observation applies with respect to science.

“PLausibility is in the eye of the beholder. We’ve already seen that Mann’s contention Steyn should have known he had been explicitly “exonerated” by various panels is false, in I believe at last count, 5 separate instances. Mann’s case looks extremely weak now.”
True plausibility is in the eye of the beholder. However, it remains that the likelihood of Steyn being able to demonstrate the Mann’s suit was frivolous will be extremely difficult. keep in mind, you have two judges that agreed the defamation case should proceed, (granted one of the judges was a nut case).

I manage a movie theater and I can assure you that the popcorn mean consumption maximum and minimum extents are directly paralel to movie goer attendance and screening of more or less popular movies impacted by both warm and pleasent weather and cold and inclemant weather , factoring in the popular use of VCR’s, cable access and now internet streaming , popcorn consumption has less monitoring exactitude thus, when plotted across a timeliune say since 1979 to 2008 we get a fairly robust retrospective data set which increases in probable error with advances in home viewing technologies. However by applying climate model algorythms we can adjust the data sets according to desired popcorn future consumption and presto we have a hockey stick! So, personally the last I knew , fraud is punishable by doing time in the state pen….

@ streetcred, I totally agree,
And @canman,, I did go and read one of your threads with “rsprung’s” dialogue, all I can add to that is that the unravelling of his attackers? That I have seen before.
I had a similar back and forth about 3 weeks ago and in the end the only answers I was given was that I was putting commas, periods, ??’s , etc. in the wrong places.in my writing during the week long “debate” regarding wind power. I was never once answered a single question that I asked regarding the government subsidies (themselves pay for), the locations and the opposition from people actually having to live near any turbines. The name calling and mudslinging was astounding!

As Conrad Black will tell you, courts in the U.S. do not exist to determine impartial Common Law but to validate ideological preconceptions at odds with every principle Blackstone, Locke, Milton or Montaigne ever stated. If “no law” means anything some Seigneur chooses to address, why not glue Humpty Dumpty firmly to his wall and back away?

I don’t know about Russian or American cliches for this Mann vs Steyn but I know in Australia it would be something like ‘U f*** with me mate, and yous better have a bigger donger than me..” Aussies are not very delicate when it comes to language and when they are angry. And a bigger wallet too.All Mark has to do is get credible witnesses to come forward and point out ‘Mannies’ obvious mistakes and hypothesis, and query why he would make these mistakes. If lay persons can do it, then a good and credible scientist should be able to point out the obvious mistakes with his data collection and how a man or scientist of his standing could do this? Dendrochronology is used by archaeologists, and it is only reliable for that particular region. Usually the conditions that a particularly tree encountered during its life. Whereas the same species somewhere else in the world can grow a lot quicker or much slower. More rain, Mike tends to push tree growth upwards?? It can be used too to date wood panels. Near where I live in, one archaeologist noticed gold was absorbed by a tree. It is not a hard or a difficult scientific exercise. Usually it is used to date the age of a tree.

cwon14: A very small risk to Mann who plays the put-upon victim who is offended. Over years it will go away with minimal cost to Mann. If he gets nailed “they” will deify him. He’s a climate war hero in his own mind and that of the hate driven climate change community.
Maybe, but if it goes to jury trial, the jury will be composed of his civil peers (registered voters), no his self-selected friends and journal “peers”. To them he has a very privileged position as college professor and recipient of hard-to-get federal and state tax money. He can be presented as a government agent who abused his privilege to carry out a vendetta against a private citizen (at an institution with a documented history of negligent investigations into public complaints, no less.) No one will perceive him as a victim.

Magma: It’s pretty clear that (with one or two exceptions) the amount of collective legal knowledge possessed by those loudly and confidently expounding here could fit in a teaspoon with plenty of room to spare.
Maybe. Have you served on a jury? Been through the voir dire process? It can be a shock for a participant in a legal proceeding to discover who his or her peers actually are. People who actually pay taxes, for example, instead of “feeding at the public trough”.

Matthew R Marler says:
March 13, 2014 at 6:54 pm
‘People who actually pay taxes, for example, instead of “feeding at the public trough”.’
Imagine Steyn’s lawyers showing the jurors pictures of Mann jetting to all those exotic locations for climate boondoggles and posing with Ed Begley Jr while they’re at home burning their kids kindergarten pictures for warmth thanks to his cute little hockey schtick.

The warmer way:
Be wrong. Insult scientists, and everyone who catches it. Claim ‘it’s irresponsible’ for others to catch them being wrong. Declare they will NEVER admit they were wrong. End conversation with snide insult, at having been caught being wrong. Declare victory at having shut down discourse. Appeal to wide, low information voter base types with strangely low-brow, socially pathological behaviors – child like baiting, and insulting of others then feigning insult at being called what they in fact have been proven to be: anti scientific bumblers. “The Falwell Complex” where viciously insulting others then crying and acting hurt alternate. Try to invoke the hysterical, low rent character assassination that brings wide crowds and make them feel they’ve got an army at their back they can rely on, to shield themselves. Change the subject to anything so they can keep their job as a crowd gathering public policy wonk passing pseudo-science off as real.
Be wrong.
Again.
Insult scientists and all those who were right.
Again.
Claim ‘it’s irresponsible’ to catch them being wrong.
Again.
Declare they will NEVER admit they were wrong privately.
Again.
End the conversation with snide insult, at having been caught being wrong.
Again.
Declare victory having shut down discourse to the degree possible.
Again.
Appeal to wide, low information voter base types with strangely low-brow, socially pathological behavior: child like baiting, and insulting of others then feigning insult at being called what they in fact have been proven to be: anti scientific bumblers. “The Falwell Complex” where viciously insulting others then crying and acting hurt alternate.
Again.
Try to invoke the hysterical, low rent character assassination that brings wide crowds and make them feel they’ve got an army at their back they can rely on, to shield themselves.
Again.
Change the subject to anything so they can keep their job as a crowd gathering public policy wonk passing pseudo-science off as real.
Again.

jeff5778: “so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a child molesting paedophile”
The statement that Steyn quoted explicitly distinguished between Mann’s data “torture” and Sandusky’s “child molestation”, so your comment is beside the point. A point that every juror will recognize (perhaps in agreement, perhaps not) is that PSU’s “exoneration” of Mann (claimed by Mann) was worth no more than PSU’s “exoneration” of Sandusky (where a grand jury investigation was required in order to get to the truth.)

Mark Steyn has pulled a brilliant move. He has invoked “COMMON LAW.” How many attorneys (who are NOT really lawyers) are competent in common law? The answer is not many to none. All the fancy maneuvers, language, rules, procedures, etc. mean nothing in common law. Attorneys are useless in common law. For an example, observe why no foreclosures have occurred in New York State in the last several years.
Common law IS the law of this land, which means it is higher/superior to other ‘law’ (look it up). It’s relatively simple to explain: Do no verified HARM to another man and/or a man’s property. Those who cause damage to another man and/or a man’s property are wrong doers and are law breakers [NOTE: man is short for huMAN, huMANkind, MANkind, etc. Therefore, ‘man’ is gender neutral…].
For further information see Karl Lentz on YouTube
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJYFvskc1ps).

It is a general description of human beings and is not gender settled, and not generally used by archaeologists. Humanity, or humankind is now preferred when generalising. I don’t agree with some radical feminists that HISTORY should be changed to HERSTORY. Or gay rights terminology for legal reasons should by changed to ‘intersex’. People go over the top sometimes, what’s wrong with gay? It is not homophobic, like poof, dike or shirt lifter. It depends in which context it is being used. The mind boggles what ‘intersex’ is likely to produce in a person’s mind. ‘Sure I am inter sex’ LOL.

There must be many scientists and climatologists that don’t agree with Mann et al. And he risks giving science a bad name. Well he has certainly done that! Is this trail going to have a jury? And if so, who is going to vet them?

Magma says:It’s pretty clear that (with one or two exceptions) the amount of collective legal knowledge possessed by those loudly and confidently expounding here could fit in a teaspoon with plenty of room to spare.
But then why should I expect any different? The same observation applies with respect to science.
Magma, I have challenged you on the science. But you tucked tail and ran, vanishing in a cloud of ink. Or pixels. Whatever. You disappeared.
The point is this: any time you wish to discuss science, I am willing and available. So are plenty of others here. But it’s best to understand the Null Hypothesis, the Scientific Method, and the definition of scientific evidence before you peek above the parapet. You might get an education that you do not like.

Like all habitual liars, Mann will lie till the bitter end and beyond. All liars do this. They stall and stall-new poppycock excuses, more stalling, red-herring trails, more stalling, more lies, more excuses. Eventually the liar dies, so it does not matter. Classic case of a liar dying before exposure is J Edgar Hoover-a rotten egg if there ever was. If the liar gets their actual goal , then the old “The victor will never be asked if he lied” applies. The stakes of the global warming scam are world domination-total world domination, largely on the back of the persistent lie of global warming. IPCC head, Christiana Figueres on January 15th in an interview with the Guardian stated-Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model. All rather interesting that the UN did not make a comment-they obviously approve. The UN showing its hand? Looks like the global warming scare was all about creating world totalitarianism. Nice of them to tell us. On another note, any of us who have had the derogatory term “denier” used against us should be able to sue for defamation. Likewise, those who speak out against Islamization being branded “racist” also have a case, as Islam means submission to Allah and the ways of the Qur’an. It is not a race, it is a doctrine.

I predict that the Jerry Sandusky of climate science will lose this lawsuit.
The body of Mark Steyn’s work involves satire and comedy. It is not meant
to be taken seriously. Mann made the biggest mistake of his life in filing the
suit in the first place.
Carlos Mencia and other comics called Michael Jackson a child molester. They
got away with it because they were comedians. You cannot sue a comedian or a
satirist.

Magma says:
March 13, 2014 at 5:38 pm
It’s pretty clear that (with one or two exceptions) the amount of collective legal knowledge possessed by those loudly and confidently expounding here could fit in a teaspoon with plenty of room to spare.
But then why should I expect any different? The same observation applies with respect to science.

====================================================================
Now, now, Magma. You should know by now that when it comes to Mannish “Climate Science” that observations don’t matter.

I am a PSU meteo grad from 1978. Please remember that Dr Mann, for better or for worse is not a product of PSU meteorology, of which I love. In the end I fear that if this goes the distance, the harm to PSU meteorology dept could be devastating. While I am by no means a pillar of the alumni base, the great people that built this department in its heyday in the 60s and 70s when it graduated 2/3rds of the nations meteorology are the people I feel worse for. When I was in school, the staff was like the who’s who of meteorology, and I cherish my degree from that era

Joseph, sadly, universities change, and unfortunately open debate that was part of independent scholarly thinking to argue a point or academic hypothesis, seems to have disappeared. If you point out some flaw or not taking account of variables into an academic’s data collection, you are either failed or not listened too. Alternative arguments are therefore frowned on. I was labelled a climate change denier, holocaust denier, even a JFK assassination denier by a senior lecturer at UNE (NSW) at a public meeting, but my name was not exactly mentioned, but I knew it meant me. At least one of the public there mentioned that alternative research makes people read about history, and the holocaust comment was unwarranted. The university would not take on my complaint as I was a student of history in the same department, a graduate mind you. I got no sympathy at all and couldn’t find a supervisor to cover the same subject matter. They don’t like one of their own being found deficient at all in their academic research or argument, particularly if that university received a grant to pursue a field of research. The DVD that I also was part of, is still to be released, and I wonder if an injunction has been placed on it being released?

@bushbunny and Joe Bastardi –
As a reformed academic myself (Ph.D., History, UC Santa Barbara, 1970) who spent three years in the snakepit before deciding I needed to do something else – the process of erosion of integrity and discipline was already well under way when I was teaching in the early 1970s. At least at the institutions where I went to school and taught (U of Utah and University of Wisconsin-Parkside), loony leftism was already in full swing. This descent of academia into the river Styx is nothing new.

Al one advantage of not having a lawyer is procedure changes. Now all a person has to do is reply in common English. It is quite simple really to reply to those legal statements. “I deny all the claims in X’s petition.” The fancy verbage is not needed. I fired my last lawyer, got what I expected pretty much. Best part was when the opposing attorney objected to my “7 page” motion for discovery calling it frivolous. He did not realize I practically copied his word for word. I pointed out he either filed a frivolous motion or was now lying both of which are violations of bar rules. I enjoyed that part. One of my biggest complaints is if you represent yourself you can’t sue for your own time. Only the nobilities, er I mean lawyers, time is considered worth something.

bushbunny said:
but I know in Australia it would be something like ‘U f*** with me mate, and yous better have a bigger donger than me..” Aussies are not very delicate when it comes to language
—————————————————————————–
bushbunny, please stop pretending that you speak on behalf of all Australians – or indeed any Aussie other than yourself.
Since I don’t have a “donger”, presumably I’m not an Australian, to take one instance in your post.
Dial it down, please, from a fellow Aussie who doesn’t claim to speak for anyone else.
Thanks.

pokerguy on March 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm
“That said, I do not believe this case will proceed to the end. Mann will be looking for a way out. Bullies are always cowards.”
I knew Mann back in grad school. If he hasn’t changed, he’s not scared nor will he back down. He thinks he’s right and that he’ll win. He always thought he was right about everything and loved to get into arguments all the time. He also believed in various conspiracies.

Don’t waste your time on Magma folks. He’s baiting you. He’s a troll. I doubt he’s an expert on both science and the law, so how could he know that these commentors are lacking skill in both? Real scientists and real lawyers comment here, as well as a great diversity of other backgrounds.
Sweeping generalizations from Magma is for effect only.

High Treason on March 13, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Like all habitual liars, Mann will lie till the bitter end and beyond. All liars do this. “..
Seriously I don’t think he’s a liar per se. He really does believe his own nonsense and will do whatever he needs to protect his belief. He is apt to believe in conspiracies and that he’s being persecuted.
When he heard about Global Warming early in grad school he switched from studying theoretical nuclear physics to climate over night: switched from the physics department to the geology department. The climate change “news” hit him like people that accept Jesus are “born again”. Fanatical devotion over night. And there was no debating him even back then in 1990 that global warming might not be true. He simply would not have an open mind about it and set out to prove that global warming was true.

Steyn is raising the stakes by causing Mann and his backers additional legal fees and including causes of action that will have to be briefed and argured and acted on at great cost. Particularly claims related to common law actions in Tort whcih is an ever expanding area of the law. In addtion, Steyn is throwing in addtional causes of action to permit future amendments of his compliant and potential damages prior to getting to the final issues to be litigated. Steyn wants the broadest possible discovery reach if his claims survive.

“After the Virginia case I doubt this will lead to full data disclosure of Mann, therefore little will be won against junk science advocates.”
If the judge subpoenas Mann’s emails and scientific data and Mann does not comply I think Mann is in danger of losing the case. His lawyers only recourse is to appeal the decision higher up the food chain. And since this is a civil suit that Mann started, he may end up the loser. This is exactly not what Mann doesn’t need right now.

David L.[Magma is] baiting you.
There, at least, you’re correct. At any rate, within a year or so it should become clear whose predictions prove correct on Mann v. Steyn (Simberg, NRO and CEI), and sooner than that in regard to Steyn’s motions.
The National Review is probably weighing its options with respect to a retraction, apology and partial cost settlement. Which would leave Steyn hanging out to dry, but then the parties seem to have cut their ties already.

. . . barratry is the offense committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment.[1] It is a crime in some jurisdictions.

Magma says:
March 14, 2014 at 9:06 am
David L. [Magma is] baiting you.
There, at least, you’re correct. At any rate, within a year or so it should become clear whose predictions prove correct on Mann v. Steyn (Simberg, NRO and CEI), and sooner than that in regard to Steyn’s motions.
The National Review is probably weighing its options with respect to a retraction, apology and partial cost settlement. Which would leave Steyn hanging out to dry, but then the parties seem to have cut their ties already.
—————————-
True enough. I have no idea how it will turn out, but I’m certainly curious to find out!!!

The changed amount isn’t all that important. What is important is tha this is a restatement of the damages claim in a form which is more likely to get traction with the court. Claiming legal costs as damages, which is what Steyn initially did was very unlikely to work. In most US jurisdictions legal costs are specifically excluded from being damages so the court would probably have just crossed them out. Now Steyn is asking for “punitive damages” instead, which means the court will at least listen to his argument before crossing them out. And in addition he asks for an award for legal costs. That is the proper way to do it. An award of legal costs is a separate thing from damages. It is very hard to get and requires a special argument.

Johanna, I was only joking, I’m English by the way, but chose to take on Aussie citizenship after the referendum in 1999, to keep the monarchy as our constitutional sovereign and not allow politicians to dictate whether they had the right to sack a president. Gosh I bet you want the union jack taken from the flag too. The Queen is just a figurehead for traditional reasons and cannot interfere in any political decisions. ( I have a letter to prove it).
I also ran a bush pub, and language was sometimes a barrier for me, as I couldn’t translate some of the expressions used. Your typical Aussie response, don’t knock us we are really as good as you and better. Chill out. Aussies can pull the punches when required and don’t mince words. That’s what I like about my adopted country.

If a fair judging panel is entrenched, they should ask for proof that Mann’s research and data has credibility before they take on the case of defamation. Steyn needs other scientists to refute it and that shouldn’t be hard to find.

Everyone has come up with their own versions of events but what really happened with Mann v. Steyn is that Mann brought suit against Steyn. This suit was what is sometimes called a SLAP suit. The letters stand for Suit at Law Against Participation (in the public arena). The idea of such suits is to force the defendant to shut up and go home because he is often unable to pay the quite high legal fees that SLAP suits typically require.
However in this case Steyn did defend himself and answered Mann’s charges and as part of Steyn’s defense he subpoenaed Mann’s climate research data and Mann refused the court’s demand that he give Steyn a copy of his data so that Steyn could adequately defend himself. This is a “Bridge to Far” as the old saying goes because Mann could never win any law suit if Steyn had Mann’s phony data in hand.

@Frank Brus – each side has pre-emption on the Jurors, but only so many (it depends upon the type of trial, but I think they get 3 for no reason, and unlimited for cause). If they reject a juror for cause, they have to convince the judge the cause is just (and of course that can be appealed as well).

How would one know if a juror is a warmist or skeptic? In criminal trails in Oz, only three jurors from each side can be rejected without explanation. But in a civil trail, there are only 4 jurors. But in a recent judge only trail, the plaintiff, tried to eject the judge!

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy